MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I want to begin
today with some personnel announcements and some travel
information. The President intends to nominate Joseph J. Jen
to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education, and
Economics. The President intends to nominate Mary Kirtley
Waters to be Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Congressional
Relations. The President intends to nominate Jeffrey R.
Holmstead to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency for Air and Radiation. And final personnel
announcement, the President intends to nominate Eileen J. O'Connor to
be Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division.

President
Bush will visit Poland during his June trip to Europe. The United
States and Poland share a broad agenda of common interests and values
in Europe and beyond, and the President looks forward to reviewing ways
in which the United States and Poland, old friends and new allies, can
intensify cooperation and pursuit of our common goals.

And with
that, I'm pleased to take any questions you may have.

Q Ari,
what is the evidence that leads U.S. officials to now be encouraged
about talks going on with China to resolve this? Or have
talks turned cold?

MR.
FLEISCHER: There's intensive diplomacy
underway. The United States and China are heavily engaged in
their discussions. There was a meeting at the State
Department this morning between Deputy Secretary Armitage and
Ambassador Yang, and in the course of that meeting the United States
pressed again for access to the crew, for the release of the crew. And
we remain in a sensitive stage of those negotiations, of those
discussions. And that is where matters stand as we speak.

Q Can
you report progress?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm reluctant to give a word one way or another
to it, due to the sensitivity of where the negotiations and discussions
currently stand. And so I would be reticent to use any types
of adjectives like that. The meetings are -- as I indicated,
the meeting took place this morning, and we do anticipate ongoing,
intensive diplomacy.

Q What
was the reaction when we pressed again this morning for the release of
the crew?

MR.
FLEISCHER: That's part of the ongoing diplomacy.

Q Was
it any different than it's been the previous four days?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Due to the sensitive nature of it I'm not going
to characterize the answers. Again, we are in the middle of
something that is ongoing with the Chinese government. The
President has made the position of the government clear, and that
position the President took when he addressed the nation and said that
the time has come for our men and women to come home is the focus of
the remarks that are being conveyed privately as well, in addition to
the return of the airplane, and that continues to be the status, and it
is ongoing.

Q Ari,
what is the reaction of this government to the suggestion that things
might not have escalated to this point as rapidly as they did if the
President had not become involved as soon as he did and with as
rhetoric as forceful as it was?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I think the President said what the United States
needed to say -- that is, that it is time for our servicemen and women
to come home. The incident took place on a Saturday night --
the accident took place Saturday night, The President did
not say anything on Sunday. He spoke out, as he intended to do, on
Monday and on Tuesday. And we are now in the middle of some
very intensive discussions and diplomacy, and that's where we are.

Q A
follow-up, if I may. As you know, there are some observers
who have suggested that if Secretary of State Powell had, for example,
made a call to some Chinese counterpart earlier on and sort of laid out
the situation as the United States saw it, that perhaps things would
not have escalated to the point that they did.

MR.
FLEISCHER: No, I think many other observers have said that
the President spoke out directly, plainly, forthrightly and
wisely. And, of course, contacts were made with Chinese
officials immediately after the accident, as well as on Sunday, and the
President has acted in a way that I think most observers have viewed as
productive.

Q As
part of these more intensive discussions, are there
military-to-military discussions going on in addition to the foreign
ministries and the diplomatic efforts?

MR.
FLEISCHER: This is being handled through diplomatic
channels.

Q Is
there any contact, military-to-military?

MR.
FLEISCHER: That's a question you really need to ask to DOD.
But this is being handled through diplomatic channels.

Q Is
the President employing any private citizens as go-betweens, including
his father?

MR.
FLEISCHER: We discussed yesterday at great length the
question of the President and his father. I'm not going to
go beyond what I indicated yesterday.

Q Not
a private conversation with his father, is he employing for the
government a private citizen as a go-between?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Terry, the contacts have been between the United
States government through diplomatic channels and the Chinese
government. And that has been the contacts that I'm aware
of. There are people, of course, here, in the National
Security Council staff, other staff, who will talk to people outside
the United States government. But that does not mean the
people they're talking to are in contact with Chinese officials,
necessarily.

Q So
there are no private citizens being used as go-betweens?

MR.
FLEISCHER: None that I'm aware of.

Q Is
it still the United States government's unambiguous position that it
will not offer an explicit apology for the incident?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The position of the United States is unchanged on
that measure.

Q Just
a follow-up. Is the idea of a special envoy to China, is
that something under active consideration?

MR.
FLEISCHER: That is not under active consideration.
Q Is
it under any consideration at all?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Nothing that I'm aware.

Q Let
me ask you one more question. Are the two sides, the U.S.
and China, at the point of exchanging explanations about the
circumstances that led to the collision? Is that -- are we
at the point where they're exchanging their sense of what happened?

MR.
FLEISCHER: During the course of the many meetings that have
been held, they have been discussing the accident, and the United
States has made it clear that one of the best ways to ascertain the
cause of the accident is to allow us to meet with our crew, to talk to
the crew and, of course, to bring the crew home. Who better
to explain the circumstances of the accident than the people who were
involved in it.

The best
way to have that discussion is to have access to the crew, which is
something the United States has pressed for.

Q Would
the U.S. support any kind of commission, a Chinese-American commission,
to look at investigating the cause of the collision and what happened?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm not going to speculate about any future steps
that may or may not be taken. But the United States is
interested in determining the exact cause of the accident.

Mr. Angle,
who is sitting in a different seat today.

Q I
moved up here in the question zone. I understand that your
language yesterday, if I remember correctly, was that we don't
understand the need for an apology. What you seemed to just
be saying was that we can't really ascertain what the facts of the
matter are until we have talked with the crew.

MR.
FLEISCHER: A separate question, Jim. I was asked
about the apology, and the answer is, the United States' position on an
apology has not changed. In terms of the accident, the best
way to determine the exact facts and circumstances of the accident,
which took place over international waters and international airspace,
is to talk to the crew.

Q You're
saying you don't understand -- the U.S. does not understand the need
for an apology, which obviously you could not until you know the facts
of the situation. Do we have some independent knowledge of
the facts, or does that require us to talk to the crew?

MR.
FLEISCHER: They're two separate
questions. There's no link between the apology and then the
facts of the accident, which took place in international airspace.

Q Ari,
twice today in this briefing, you've used -- started to use the word
"negotiations," and then changed it to the words --

MR.
FLEISCHER: You can use both.

Q --
to the discussions. Is there any difference?

MR.
FLEISCHER: You can use both.

Q Ari,
Senator Lugar is implying that the pilot of the Chinese jet plane that
crashed and apparently hit our plane was sort of a hot dog, so to
speak, and he had been harassing this plane before on one of its
missions. Now, can you talk about that? Also, the
word, "interrogation" has been used of our crew members. Are
they, in fact, being interrogated, as far as you know?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Ivan, I'm not going to characterize the actions
of the Chinese pilot. I think that underscores the reason
why we need to talk to our crew, who was in the presence of the Chinese
pilot. They can best address those questions.

The Chinese
have said from the beginning of this accident that they want to
investigate the causes of it themselves, that they wanted to interview
the crew or to question the crew. We do know from the
meeting that was held with the crew that they have been treated well,
and that's where that matter stands.

Q Just
to follow the question of semantics, an interview if fine, but it's not
nearly as strong as interrogate, and the word coming out of Beijing, as
I understand it, is interrogation. Does that concern the
President and the administration at all?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Our understanding is that they would like to
interview or question the crew.

Q Following
up on something you said this morning, if there is questioning of the
crew, would you demand a U.S. presence during that?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm not going to deal with any hypotheticals
about potential questioning of the crew.

Q Have
U.S. representatives in the room if they are questioned?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Our position is that the Americans should be
removed from the situation and be brought home. And we
continue to press that case.

Q Ari,
when Americans are detained overseas it is common practice for the
embassy or the consulate to go to considerable lengths to provide
whatever local representation is appropriate before the investigating
board. Why aren't we doing that?

MR.
FLEISCHER: We would like to be with the Americans at all
times, of course.

Q This
heavier diplomatic engagement, when did this start and what prompted
it? Was it a more openness by China diplomats to talk to our
diplomats? Was it something they did, something we
did? How would you characterize this?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I think it's part of the ongoing events as the
world watches them unfold, and part of the United States commitment to
get our men and women home. The President, in his
conversations with Secretary Powell and with National Security Advisor
Rice, has directed them to take the steps that bring our men and women
home, and that's reflected in the conversations that are being held on
the diplomatic level. There is a heavy engagement on the
diplomatic level and that's well and good.

Q But
that is a change from what had been happening for the last four days.

MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm not prepared to characterize reasons why any
of those events are happening. Again, there still remains a
sensitive stage of these talks, and I'll leave it at that.

Q But
it does appear that Chinese diplomats are more open to discussions with
the U.S. about how this occurred and what the next step will be than
they have been in the previous four days.

MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm going to refrain from characterizing the
Chinese statements. I'll characterize the American ones.

Q Ari,
the public may not be --

Q Ari,
from the outset, the Chinese have said that the incident or the
collision was caused by the U.S. plane swerving into their
plane. Now, four or five days after the incident, we see a
published report saying, indeed, the U.S. plane did make an abrupt
turn. Why wasn't the U.S. government more forthcoming with
that information at the outset?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, I think that the facts are not
clear. And that is again why it's very important for the
United States to have access and talk to the crew. If you
want to know what took place in the air between -- actually among three
different airplanes, the best way is to talk to the crew who was
involved. So I think you need to withhold on judgment about
those facts until the crew is talked to at greater length.

Q And
if I could follow up on that, Ari, how can we be sure that an apology
from the U.S. is unwarranted if we don't have an understanding of the
basic facts of the situation?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Again, the basic facts are that the P-3 was
operating in international airspace.

Q But
that doesn't -- I mean, you can still do something wrong in
international airspace, can't you?

MR.
FLEISCHER: It's the right to fly in international airspace,
which is why the United States, as we have said repeatedly, did nothing
wrong. It is the government's right to fly in international
airspace around the world.

Q That
doesn't rule out error by the crew of the aircraft or a number of other
things which could be offensive that an aircraft could do in
international airspace.

MR.
FLEISCHER: Yes, I think that's why it's important to talk to
the crew. But we have made our position very clear on it for
a variety of good reasons, not all of which I'm at liberty to get
into.

Q Does
that mean our position on an apology could change once we've talked to
the crew and discover what happened?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No, the position on the apology is clear and
consistent.

Q Ari,
even if those discussions with the crew eventually reveal that that
crew perhaps made a mistake which caused the accident, you still would
not apologize?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The reason we have said what -- the United States
government has said what it's said about the apology is based on
information that we have, and I'm not going to go beyond that.

Q Ari,
two days ago, the President made a very clear statement saying, give us
the crew, give us the plane; in essence, saying time is running
out. Two days later, we've got nothing -- no crew, no plane,
and no greater access to the crew. Shouldn't the public be
concerned that China is not meeting any of these requests or demands?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No, David. In the President's approach
on this, he is not going to act or react based on news
cycles. He's going to continue to lead in the manner that he
thinks is the most productive way to bring our men and women
home. And that's why, again, you've seen this pace of
diplomacy that we are engaged in with China, and that is continuing.
That is the President's position.

Q Right. But
the public is being told that there is intense diplomacy, and it's not
getting anywhere so far.

MR.
FLEISCHER: I think all Americans have reason to be concerned
and want our crew home. So there is cause for concern, of
course, because our crew remains in China. And the President
is concerned; that's why he spoke out as he did. And I think
the American people have cause for concern about Americans not coming
home.

Q Is
China showing any good faith here in this negotiation?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Again, there remain discussions at a very
sensitive stage. I'm going to refrain from characterizing
them one way or other, in order to allow the most productive events to
develop.

Q Ari,
could we fix the budget for a minute?

Q A
couple more on China.

MR.
FLEISCHER: Mike, we'll come back to you then.

Q Ari,
you've talked about a couple of times this week, and Scott talked on
Monday, about roles played in the administration by Dr. Rice,
Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell. One thing that hasn't
come up, at least that I'm aware of, is the Vice
President. What's his role been in this?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The Vice President's been participating in the
intelligence meetings with the President, receiving information about
it. And as in all issues, the Vice President lends his advice to the
President, about what course of action to take.

Q Ari,
is there concern that because of these events, that Congress may revoke
China's normal trade relations status?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, we're aware of various statements that are
being made up on Capitol Hill, and as far as the President's concerned,
it underscores what he said two days ago, that this matter needs to be
resolved and our men and women brought home in order to avoid any
damage to United States-China relations.

Q At
this point, the White House is still going to push for normal trade
relations for China if the vote does come up in the spring, as well?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President is taking it one step at a time.

Q So
he may not support that?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm not indicating -- I'm not indicating that one
way or another. The President is taking events one step at a
time.

Q Ari,
to follow on that, a number of congressional trips were planned, or are
planned, for during the recess to China. I think one office
is telling a colleague of mine at CNN the White House is encouraging
lawmakers to go forward with these trips, that continued contact is
good. Can you say, A, is the White House encouraging lawmakers to
continue with their plans?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The White House is not objecting to any trips
that lawmakers have to China.

Q Can
you say if the members have come to the White House and said, is this
okay, should we go?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I think members are sensitive to what is
happening diplomatically, sensitive to what's happening, given the fact
that there are 24 servicemen in China, and so they're asking proper
questions, and the White House has made it clear.

Q Why
would the White House not object, because some members are deciding
that they think it's not in the right interests to go if 24 crew
members are detained there?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The judgment of the President, the judgment of
the White House.

Q
Ari, can I come back to interrogation? Do the Chinese have
the right to interrogate these people, or are they just entitled to
name, rank and serial number?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, we have the right to have our men and women
returned home, is the President's view. And that's what his
focus is on. And absent their immediate return to the United States we
want to have American officials with the American crew at all
times. And that is the position of the government.

Q But
do they have the right to interrogate these people? If you
say that you understand, it's understandable they would want to
investigate what happened --

MR.
FLEISCHER: If you're asking me a legal question, that's a
question that you really need to address to consular officials who have
a legal understanding of these issues. That's a very
specific legal question about rights, and it's not at all clear.

Q Is
the President -- there's also some pressure in Congress to oppose
China's bid for the Olympics. Does the President have any
position at this time on whether or not China should be given the
Olympics?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Similar to what -- in responding to Keith's
question, the President is going to take this one step at a
time. The President, as he said two days ago, hopes that
this will not damage long-term United States-China relations.

Q Is
it your sense and have you communicated to the Chinese that one of the
problems here is they're risking not only a congressional backlash, but
also a public backlash?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, this is what the President indicated two
days ago, that unless this matter is resolved, it does risk harming
United States-China relations. And during the meeting that
the President had with Deputy Premier Qian Qichen, what they focused on
in the Oval Office was entirely positive. They talked about
the fruitful, growing relations between the United States and China,
the many opportunities our two nations have, particularly in the area
of trade, which are mutually beneficial. That was the tenor of the
meeting. And the President continues to believe that there
are many fruitful opportunities between the United States and China,
particularly in the areas of trade.

It
underscores what the President said two days ago, though, that unless
this matter is resolved, it does threaten to harm future U.S.-China
relations.

Q A
public backlash or congressional backlash would in some ways take away
the President's control over this issue.

MR.
FLEISCHER: I can only speak to the President, the
President's thoughts, the President's actions.

Q Is
he concerned about losing control of this issue as Congress and the
public becomes angry about it and decides to take their own position on
various things like Olympics --

MR.
FLEISCHER: I see no evidence that it has reached that
point.

Q And
what does he say to the public who -- many people feel a natural
upwelling of anger and sentiment over seeing these American men and
women held, detained against their will, now
interrogated. What does he say to people who are getting
downright angry about this?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, as the President said publicly after he
talked to Ambassador Prueher who met with the servicemen and women,
that all Americans will be relieved to know that they've been treated
well and that their health is well. But all Americans want
them to come home. And so the President understands the
feeling of the country, that it is time for them to come home, and
that's why he's engaged in the diplomacy that he is.

MS.
COUNTRYMAN: It wasn't Prueher, it was Sealock.

MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm sorry, thank you. Sealock, General
Sealock, not Ambassador Prueher who met with the servicemen and women.

Q Ari,
could I just be clear about the administration's
position? Before this incident, the President did support
normal trade relations for China, is that correct?

MR.
FLEISCHER: That is correct.

Q Ari,
and now your position is, we have to take things one step at a
time. That's what you're saying on that?

MR.
FLEISCHER: That is the President's position on both
measures.

Q Are
you talking about how this goes on, there might be a risk of damaging
the U.S.-China relationship. Is there also a risk, on a
political level, of diminishing the effectiveness, perhaps, of the
presidency? In other words, if this becomes a hostage
debacle, does that harm him politically? I realize his first
priority right now is to get our people home, but is there any concern
in the White House politically that this could hurt his presidency?

MR.
FLEISCHER: That's such a hypothetical I'm not even going to
deal with that. The White House's focus has been on one
thing, and it's not politics. It's getting our men and women
home. And again, I want to remind you that it remains at a
very sensitive stage, and that's where we stand as we speak today, at
12:30 p.m. or so. That's where we stand at this very
moment.

Q Is
it the United States government's position that the United States has
not yet learned whether our reconnaissance aircraft swerved or not, we
simply don't know, or did we learn from the initial meeting with the
crew what happened?

MR.
FLEISCHER: What I've indicated is, the best way to ascertain
information is to talk directly with the crew. The United
States, of course, has other ways of obtaining information which I'm
not at liberty to get into. But the best way to obtain that
information is to meet with the crew.

Q Are
you saying that that means the U.S. government at this point remains
ignorant of the facts of whether the plane swerved or not?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No, I have just indicated the United States
government has other information, additional information, as is typical
in the matter of flights, and I'm not at liberty to get into that, as
you can imagine.

Q Ari,
two questions, one to follow up on that. Did General Sealock
raise the issue of how the incident took place in his initial contacts
with the pilot and the rest of the crew? And, secondly, is
it still the President's plan to travel for the baseball game tomorrow
afternoon, or is there a possibility that he's going to have to stay
here?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President's travel plans are unchanged, as
previously announced. And as far as your first question, I
might need to go back to look at my notes on the conversation he had
with them, but they did describe the emergency situation they were in,
the mayday distress, the call they put out, their landing on the
runway, and those were the steps they took. As you know, the
plane dropped 8,000 feet right after the accident. They were
able to regain control of the airplane and bring it in on an emergency
landing.

Q Has
the President talked to any member of the Chinese government in the
last five days?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Ron, the President has taken the actions that he
believes are the most productive to resolve this. The
President is prepared to take additional actions as he deems
necessary. The short answer to your question is, no, he is
not. His judgment remains that he will take those actions
that are most productive to bring this matter to a conclusion, so that
our men and women get home. Of course, he has been in
frequent contact with Secretary Powell, Secretary Powell spoke with
Chinese officials last night, as you know.

As I
indicated this morning, there was an additional meeting at the State
Department this morning. The President has been monitoring
those events very, very closely.

Q Can
I clarify one thing on normal trade status and support for China's
Olympic bid. Previously, you were saying the President was
in favor of those things, and now, that his view on that is pending.

MR.
FLEISCHER: I said that the President is in favor, and the
President is taking it one step at a time. They are both
accurate descriptions of the President's view.

Q But
he has been in favor, but on this particular day, he is not saying that
he is in favor?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No, I said the President is in favor, and the
President is taking it one step at a time.

Q Do
you object to the language to consider it pending now his support of --

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President's made his position clear; he's
taking it one step at a time.

Q If
we said that you wouldn't object?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I never object to anything that you say.

Q Ari,
did you reply to both the Olympic bid and normal trade relations -- the
U.S. government's position is that China --

MR.
FLEISCHER: On the U.S. government position on the Olympics
in China in 2008, I have not directly discussed that with the
President.

Q Ari,
yesterday you said that the formal charging of the Chinese American
scholar was a separate issue from the plane and crew incident --
accident. Why does the White House believe there is no
connection there?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The Chinese government arrested Gao Zhan several
weeks ago, and we do not see a tie between the two
events. Obviously, it predated the accident, so there can be
no tie.

Q --
the formal charges coming after this was a coincidence, then?

MR.
FLEISCHER: It's the judgment of the government, the United
States government, the President, that there is no tie.

Q Does
the U.S. think she's a spy then? Does the U.S. think that
she was spying?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No, the United States believes that she should be
released.

Q What
about the spying --

MR.
FLEISCHER: We see no evidence of that.

Q Ari,
budget. You suffered a setback in the Senate
yesterday. Can you tell us what the President is doing
specifically and personally, to try to --

MR.
FLEISCHER: I talked to the President about that both last
night and this morning. And the President's point of view is
this is the beginning of a process in which there will be many
votes. And as Senate watchers know, those votes are often
revisited rather quickly after they're taken. So the fact
that a vote fell one way one moment is not a sure indication it will
remain that way.

The
President actually took heart in the fact that the Democrats have a new
position on taxes, that they now support a tax cut in excess of $1.1
trillion, while he continues to think the right number is $1.6
trillion. So it's further evidence of the Democrats moving
toward the President, albeit, they are not at the point where the
President himself is, they continue to move in the right
direction. That was how the President viewed that vote.

Now, the
President remains engaged in the vote in the Senate. He's been in
regular contact with our Hill people, and he will continue to do
so. There are a series of conversations going on with people
on the Hill. And I do have to say, welcome to the world of
the 50-50 Senate. I think you can presume that on many major
votes, in a 50-50 Senate, they will be close.

But again, it underscores it as the beginning of a process, and a
process the President will work very hard to make come out his way.

Q Can
you tell us specifically if he is talking to members himself?

MR.
FLEISCHER: He has.

Q Like
Senator Jeffords?

MR.
FLEISCHER: He has not directly talked with Senator
Jeffords.

Q This
week he talked to Hill members?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Yes.

Q Has
he talked to Specter?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm not going to go down the list of all of
them. And the President often has meetings in the residence or phone
calls that he likes to keep private. But he has talked with
a number of people, including Democrats. We're going to --
the President will continue to watch the process, and get involved in
it as deeply as is necessary or not necessary to fight for his budget.

Q --
level of communication between Senator Helms and the White House on the
Cellucci nomination?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I'll have to get back to you on that.

Q Ari,
on energy, yesterday the Chairman of the Fed said he didn't view the
California situation as a crisis. Are you concerned that he
has a different view, or do you agree --

MR.
FLEISCHER: As you know, the White House doesn't comment on
statements made by the Fed.

Q Why
the reversal on salmonella?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, it's not a reversal. The
Secretary is the one who makes those decisions, and the Secretary had
not made a decision until today.

Q But
the Department announced last week that it was changing the
regulation.

MR.
FLEISCHER: That had not yet been brought to the Secretary's
decision. And the Secretary makes those
decisions. This was a case in which officials at the
Department of Agriculture were -- had some options that they were
reviewing. But the Secretary had made it clear that nothing
would happen until she checked off on it, and that she said that she
wanted to discuss it with consumer groups prior to checking off on it.

She started
to have those discussions with some consumer groups. She's made her
decision today, and made it clear, that the United States Department of
Agriculture will continue to have those standards in place, to protect
school lunches, so that we can inspect the meals, so there is no
salmonella present.

Q Did
the newspapers get this wrong, Ari, or --

MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm sorry?

Q Did
the newspapers get this story wrong, or was there bad guidance being
given out by --

MR.
FLEISCHER: No, I think the newspapers faithfully reported
what an official at the Department of Agriculture said, but that
official is not the Secretary of Agriculture. It is the
Secretary of Agriculture who makes those decisions.

Q How
much politics though went into the decision making, giving the
criticism you've had for people saying supporting this is too much?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me give you --

Q Did
you want to get away from the very headline that was in the Post this
morning?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The Secretary made her decision based on the
merits and based on protecting schoolchildren. Yesterday the
Secretary met with the President in the Oval Office for approximately
45 minutes to talk about protecting the United States from foot and
mouth disease. This topic did not even come up, which is an
indication that you would think this was an action the Secretary is
about to take, she would have discussed it with the
President. There was no such discussion of the topic because
it was not on the top of the Secretary's list because she had not taken
the action that was reported, that was attributed to another official
at the Department of Agriculture.

Q --
hours away from taking it, so why wouldn't she say, tomorrow I'm going
to announce that I'm sticking with these regulations?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I think that once an official at the Department
of Agriculture said something that was not in keeping with what the
Secretary knew she was going to do, the Secretary may have adjusted her
timetable to make the announcement. But I think it's just
the opposite, Ron. You would think that if this was the
Secretary's action that would land on the front page of the nation's
newspaper, she would discuss that with the President.

Q Are
you saying she adjusted her timetable because of the story in the paper
today?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I think that's fair to say.

Q What's
wrong with the reasoning is it was announced earlier. I mean, would it
be too cynical to assume that people in here saw that headline and they
--

MR.
FLEISCHER: When you say it was announced earlier, what are
you referring to?

Q It
was published as an intent to change the regulation a matter of days
ago. And would it be too cynical to assume that people saw
the early additions of the paper, saw that headline, and said, we can't
have this in the wake of everything else -- arsenic and everything
else?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Again, because the Secretary made clear last week
in speaking with consumer groups that she had not made a decision on it
and would not until she thoroughly reviewed it. And then
this decision apparently was made by somebody who was not in a position
to make the decision for the Secretary. The Secretary saw it
and she made her decision.

Q That's
the question. What's going on over at Ag if somebody below
the Secretary would announce a change in policy without asking the head
of the department?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, Jim, I may be new in town, but I guess
that's the first instance of a mid-level official at an agency saying
something and the press getting a hold of it and the press reporting it
without it being authorized by the Secretary.

Q --
somebody popping off who doesn't know the policy or wants the policy to
be different? Is the President concerned about that?

MR.
FLEISCHER: What's important is the Secretary has addressed
the policy and taken the necessary action to make sure that our
nation's school lunches are free from salmonella.

Q One
more on budget. Can I ask you --

Q --
is something happening to this low-level official who did leak
incorrect information? Is he being, or she being punished in
some way?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No, I'm sure that there's just a discussion
underway to make certain that people in the agencies know that it is
Secretaries who make decisions.

Q Ari,
on the budget, Senate Republicans are saying part of the reason the
President's plan lost yesterday is because he wasn't doing enough, that
he's not engaged enough, he wasn't phone-calling enough, wasn't trying
to lobby enough, he's just not engaged enough. And they're
saying this on the Hill more and more today.

MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm not aware of any people who will vote for the
budget who are saying that. I think people who are saying
that are people who would not vote for the budget in any case, and
they're always looking for any little option, any little way to tweak
the President.

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President continues to believe that the
budget that he proposed is the right budget for the country, and he is
going to continue to press for it.

Q Well,
if the Democrats are moving towards the President, why wouldn't --
they're being so accommodating, why wouldn't the President move a
little bit towards them?

MR.
FLEISCHER: They may keep moving. (Laughter.)

Q On
the Middle East, does the White House have any observation, criticism,
whatever, on the latest violence which has escalated sharply in the
past two days?

MR.
FLEISCHER: It reaffirms what the President has said -- that
we need to make sure that the violence ends. As you know,
there was a meeting in the Middle East. The United States is
playing a role as being a facilitator, and the United States will
continue to do that.

We need to
take one last question, because I've got to go with the President to
his speech.

Q Ari,
does the President believe that it is possible to address Senator
Jeffords' concerns and his request for additional special ed funding,
and still keep with his planned 4 percent cap on discretionary spending
growth, keep his full tax cut and not eat up a significant chunk of his
contingency fund?

MR.
FLEISCHER: That proposal that Senator Jeffords is making is
not in the area of domestic discretionary -- I believe it's in the area
of entitlements. And all of that is being
discussed. And the President remains committed to his
$1.6-trillion tax cut. We will continue to work with
senators and see what the final outcome is, and that is something that
Senator Jeffords cares very deeply about.

And I do
have to -- you don't want to make me miss the car.

Q Is
he equally committed to his contingency fund?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President's contingency
fund? Yes. And the reason the President has
proposed a contingency fund is to deal with
contingencies. (Laughter.)